Why not treat Hydrogen just like Natural Gas?

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by Sir Aristrotle, Sep 29, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Sir Aristrotle The C.E.O. of Teen-Moods Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    152
    Both Hydrogen and Natural Gas are just that... Gases.
    They claim that in order to use hydrogren in cars it needs to be in liquid form which requires the hydrogen to be kept in an insulated storage tank....

    I have heard of natural gas cars and there are already plenty of appliances that run on natural gas. Couldn't we just slowly switch over from natural gas to hydrogen. I'm sure these already exsisting appliances can use it.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    I guess you really don't understand how hydrogen could be used. You have to have hydrogen under allot of pressure, say 10,000 PSI to get a automobile running for about 200 miles. Propane works with little pressure,about 10 to 20 PSI, and therefore is easier to handle. The easiest way to hane hydrogen in automobiles is to make the hydrogen inside the vehicle as it is either sitting still or moving. You could just fill 2 tanks with hydrogen and connect them together to get 400 miles but that hydrogen must be stored somewhere before it is put into the tanks. The only easy way to transport thousands of pounds of hydrogen is liquifing it which means it must be very cold, say -100 degrees F.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. blackholesun Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    636

    Try -422.93F
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
  8. Sir Aristrotle The C.E.O. of Teen-Moods Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    152
    see at least the europeans are trying/testing... we are overhere cursing at each other about what to do first..

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    I say that by letting people try different avenues of distribution and suppy we will have more alternatives and perhaps breakthroughs in advancing hydrogen. I commend any nation that is doing anything to furthur the use of hydrogen for it is a fuel of the near future for all of humankind. Without hydrogen that is renewable humans will be running short of gas in a very short period of time due to those in charge of oil production making up lies to make more profits for their countries. With a second fuel source gas prices will be kept in check and humans can have a much cleaner and healthier environment along with lower prices in the long run.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,216
    Also Hydrogen has to be made artificially from water or fossil fuels unlike natural gas which is mined directly.
     
  11. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    It actually costs more and takes more energy to extract oil and natural gas then it would to just use a nuclear reactor to make hydrogen. Think about the surveying, the drilling, the extraction , shipping and distribution of oil based products.
     
  12. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,216
    I have to disagree there cosmictraveler as of now the thermodynamics are in favor of mined fossil over mined uranium and electrolysis. If we had solar and wind farms making hydrogen it could be made cheaper but as of yet hydrogen fuel will cost more per “gallon” then fossil fuels cost today, note how I said today in the near future the demand/supply ratio will make oil much more expensive. I personally advocate Biofuels as a cheaper alternative.

    So as long as we are on the subject of gas: what about methane? Cars that run on almost literally on farts! We could just make it into methanol but that process is rather inefficient (most of the methane is burnt, though that energy goes into providing electrical power)
     
  13. Sir Aristrotle The C.E.O. of Teen-Moods Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    152
    wow. I don't give a flyin' **** what we use as long as we cut pollution by atlest 70%. Tell the government to get on it.
     
  14. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    Hydrogen is the cleanest amongst them all, 0 pollution! It is recyclelable and can be made , if you take into consideration all the costs for actually getting real gasoline from the oil, for about the same price as gasoline or diesel fuel. Remember that refineries have to extract the gas from the oil and that takes energy so I really don't understand why there's a debate about costs with manufacturing hydrogen. You need water and a power source and that can be built anywhere close to water. I'd like to also remind you that 100 oli wells are drilled and only 2 are ever actually producing oil for any amount of time. That seems like a real waste of energy if you ask me, how about you?
     
  15. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,216
    Hydrogen also burns horribly in ICEs having to be burn "lean" because of its low flash point, hydrogen ICEs (except for turbines) suffer dramatically loss in power from 30-50% also producing many times more NOx pollution because of the higher air ratio. (the exact number varies but never proven below Nox levels of gasoline) So no Hydrogen is not a clean fuel.

    Hydrogen requires 237.13Kj per mole to synthesis from water and when burnt only 20-30% of the energy is recovered in work in standard piston ICE, 55% in very efficient turbines, fuel cells 40-50%, 70% if a turbine is attached to run off the steam the fuel cell produces (look up SOFC). Oil only requires a small percentage of its energy to be mined, purified; ect about 15-25% of the oil needs to be burnt to mine oil (as of now it going to get costlier soon). Hydrogen requires an intensive electrical infrastructure to mass produced on a large scale, the amount of money needed for such a change is why people aren’t doing anything. Bottom line is oil is energy positive and at this time is cheaper per joule, watt, gallon, manpower and infrastructure to make and burn then making hydrogen and burning even electrochemically oxidizing (fuel cell) hydrogen. Hydrogen cannot be easily stored and no proven means exist that can store enough to have as many joules per lb or gallon as gasoline at room temperatures and/or pressure. Because of storage Hydrogen is practically useless for commercial aerospace (other then rockets) (airplanes). Fuels cells are not cheap and are nowhere near producing as much energy per lb of power source mass as ICEs.

    Ethanol and biofuels can be made energy positive from bio-sources such as farmers waste. Resent biotech breakthrough makes energy positive cellulose-to-ethanol production a reality. Methanol can be made from methane sources such as sewage and garbage though inefficiently (most of the methane has to be burnt in the process making electricity if a turbine is applied) Biodiesel can be made from fats animal or vegetable, also oil can be synthesized from any organic material energy positive thanks to new technologies. The best part about this is it requires little to no changes in the automobiles and fuel management industries. All modern cars can run 10% Ethanol (E10), and with a OH sensor and lined gas tanks cars can run 85% (E85) Ethanol. Cars run better on ethanol. Ethanol and methanol burn more efficiently and produce ¼ as much NOx as gasoline (Ethanol and methanol have less energy per gallon then gasoline though, 2/3 ½ consecutively that amount of joules per gallon as gasoline) Ethanol and methanol can also run on Fuel Cells (look up DAFC) and are expected to fuel some commercial electronics such as laptops and cellophones by 2005.
     
  16. Sir Aristrotle The C.E.O. of Teen-Moods Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    152
    wow. you typed all of that and didn't even manage to answer my question.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,216
    Sorry, I was talking to cosmictraveler there, Sir Aristrotle. No the government is not making any changes anytime soon, I'm not even going to begin saying it because big oil controls our government to the point of maintaining a total monopoly. I will mention that Dick Cheney was a former C.E.O of Halbetian, the oil company that “coincidentally” is in charge of controlling the iraq oil fields. The USofA policy seems to be instead changed to other fuels as world oil demand exceeds production just curb all the oil for our selves fuck the world!
     
  18. MRC_Hans Skeptic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    827
    Hydrogen is only "clean" with respect to CO and CO2, and that only if no CO2 is released making it. NOx and pollution from lubricants and other additives is just as bad (not for fuel cells).

    Just to make the storage problem clear:

    Various hydrocarbon gases have boiling points that are relatively close to the freezing point (but below) and they are liquids at normal temperatures at quite low pressures (pressure raises the boiling point of all liquids), so you can store them either at normal temperature at a reasonable pressure, or at normal presure but at an attainable low temperature. In both cases, you will have a liquid, which means you have a reasonably dense fuel.

    Hydrogen, however, has a boiling point that is just above absolute zero, so it takes a hopelessly low temperature or a dangerously high pressure to store it in a useful density.

    Hans
     
  19. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,216
    Biofuels release no net amount of CO2, all the CO2 produced from burning biofuels are reabsorbed when you grow the plants needed to make biofuels, the process is recyclative and there is no net production of CO2 (CO from incomplete combustion will oxidize spontaneously into CO2 in atmosphere with a half-life of only a few days.) For fuel cells (DAFC) Ethanol and Methanol are very effective fuels, storing more hydrogen per lb and gallon then any other proven normal pressure and temperature storage technique (including Borax and Solid Bound Hydrogen sources, there is some unproven claims that lithium or nickel doped carbon nanotubes or graphite can store 20-30% in weight hydrogen) In a fuel cell biofuels produce no Nox, CO, O3 and CxHx pollutants.
     
  20. MRC_Hans Skeptic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    827
    On the other hand, biofuels burden the environment when grown, at least using current cultivation methods. There are also environmental issues when handling and processing them. Things aint easy :bugeye:

    Hans
     
  21. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,216
    Biofuels can be made from farming waste which means there is no extra burden other then that of having to make food, making fuel and making food do not compete and can run parallel with each other, a farmer still sells his corn or wheat as food but now can sell the corn or wheat stalks to a cellulose-to-ethanol factory, getting back the wasted as fertilizer and increasing the farmers income, instead of leaving the stalks to rot. So there is no need to grow our agriculture industry any larger, heck we could make fuel from suburban lawn clippings and fall leaves!
    Sewage is dried and then pumped underground into wasted storage, why not make it into methane and methanol?
    Organic waste like plastics and tires are left in junk yards and dumps why not make them into hydrocarbons (oil)?
    Why would these practices increase on pollution? It seems like they would do the opposite, sence they all require wasted and pollution as the input.
     
  22. MRC_Hans Skeptic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    827
    Sure, all the things you mention seem OK, but not simple to do. I was thinking of the burden of growing fuel crops. Given time, we will surely find a way...

    Hans
     
  23. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,216
    And hydrogen production, storage and use is simple and easy?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page